Connect with us

Science

Tortured by regret? Here’s a trick to make peace with the past

Published

on

Tortured by regret? Here’s a trick to make peace with the past

We all have regrets. And they come in myriad shapes and sizes. Some people stew over a minor bad decision, like an unnecessary impulse purchase. Others ruminate over major fork-in-the-road moments, like turning down a potentially exciting career opportunity. For some, regret might be slow-brewing indecision that amounts to loss, like not having children.

But what if you could reimagine your memories — both recent and from long ago — to vanquish feelings of regret?

That’s the focus of a new study, “Reining in regret: emotion regulation modulates regret in decision making,” co-authored by Temple University’s Crystal Reeck and Kevin LaBar, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University.

The study, published in the journal “Cognition and Emotion” in June, employed a gambling framework — you win some, you lose some — to explore participants’ decision-making processes. Sixty people were individually presented with several pairs of bets, each representing different probabilities of winning or losing real money. They were paid $10 for the one hour of questioning as well as bonus money for points they’d racked up during the experiment. If they answered questions incorrectly, they lost real money and may have felt a pang of — you guessed it — regret.

Advertisement

Reeck and LaBar were able to gauge the intensity of their regret through questioning and psychophysiological recordings that measured how participants’ bodies were experiencing emotion at the time.

Participants were encouraged to use two different emotional regulation strategies when faced with uncertainty during the study. The first, which researchers called the “portfolio approach,” encouraged them to recognize that not every decision will work out, and to focus on the big picture in the long run.

“The idea is not to experience as many individual highs and lows but to smooth out your reactions and be more even-keeled,” Reeck said.

The second strategy was an “all my money on one bet” approach, which focused on each gamble as if it was the only one.

“What we found was: using the portfolio approach led people to experience less regret and have less strong emotional reactions during the decision-making task,” Reeck said.

Advertisement

That same approach can be applied to decision making in real life by traveling down memory lane, reviewing past decisions and assigning a different framework to them, Reeck says. The end goal? To make better choices in the present and, ultimately, experience less regret.

“Inevitably, every choice we make doesn’t work out,” Reeck says. “We are all going to experience some losses. But when you try to focus on the gains, it is easier to not be bogged down by past regrets.”

We spoke with Reeck by phone to learn more about how we can use her findings to get over our regrets — no matter what size they come.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Why was regret an especially attractive emotion for you to work with? Were you seeing anything in society or the people around you that drew you to the idea?

Advertisement

Regret is ubiquitous. When a decision doesn’t work out the way we had hoped, and we see that if we did something else things would have been better, we experience regret. And the especially challenging thing about regret is we can experience it even for decisions we’re contemplating but haven’t made. For example, you might consider getting a sports car but then imagine how you would feel if it broke down and needed maintenance. That anticipated feeling of regret could lead you to choose a safer vehicle.

I worked on this project in my 20s and 30s, a time when friends and family were making a lot of big decisions — getting married, changing jobs, pursuing more education, making their first big purchases. And I noticed that some of the worry around those big choices is that they’ll regret something. Understanding better how regret works and how to overcome regret can help people navigate those big decisions, including when it doesn’t work out. So that was part of the draw.

What role does regret play in our lives and what’s at stake when we seek to reshape our feelings around it?

Regret can help us learn from our mistakes. Especially when there was a better option we could have chosen, those negative feelings of regret can help us choose more wisely in the future. And anticipated regret — like with the sports car — can help us avoid risky decisions. The problem is: sometimes regret can lead us astray, like when we used a good process and made a good choice, it just didn’t work out in your favor this time. Regret can steer you away, when you should actually make that same decision again in the future.

A key example of where this comes up is the stock market. Sometimes, like in recent weeks, the stock market may drop dramatically. You might feel regret that you lost money and pull your investment. But that’s not what you should do if your reasoning for being invested was sound — you’ll just end up missing out when the market recovers.

Advertisement

Tell us about the study itself. Why did you employ a gambling framework?

We needed a way to induce people to feel regret in the lab so we could study it. To do that, we asked them to make decisions between two different options that each had some risk — there were no guaranteed outcomes. At some point, people choose an option that makes less money than the other option would have made, leading them to feel regret.

How can we use the gambling framework to reshape our own feelings of regret?

Think about overall how you made the decision. If the logic or approach you used was sound, you can feel more comfortable with the choice. You probably just got unlucky and if you made the same decision 10 times it would have worked out in most of them.

One of the cool things about regret is there is a formula for calculating its influence on decision making. So you can look at things like pursuing the options with the highest value and if regret is interfering with that. We found that for many of our participants, the portfolio approach led them to make better decisions that were less influenced by regret.

Advertisement

Here’s a scenario: I’m an adult with a gnawing regret— let’s say it’s not buying the house of my dreams when I could afford it. How do I use your framework to reshape my regret?

Focus on your reasons for not buying the house — were they sound and did they make sense with the information you had at the time? If so, give yourself some grace for the choice you made. And remember that feeling of regret when the next once-in-a-lifetime opportunity comes along.

How can we reimagine our memories to alter past feelings of regret? Walk us through that exercise.

Think back to where you were when you made the decision. What information did you have at the time? And did you use what you knew well? Was the way you approached the decision reasonable and did you use a good strategy? If so, offer yourself some grace. Remember that you win some, you lose some.

Think about if the decision you made had actually happened 10 times instead of just 1. Would you get the outcome you wanted most of the time, and you just got unlucky? Keep in mind you just want to do well overall, even if the occasional decision doesn’t work out.

Advertisement

Science

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

Published

on

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week set maximum levels for lead in baby foods such as jarred fruits and vegetables, yogurts and dry cereal, part of an effort to cut young kids’ exposure to the toxic metal that causes developmental and neurological problems.

The agency issued final guidance that it estimated could reduce lead exposure from processed baby foods by about 20% to 30%. The limits are voluntary, not mandatory, for food manufacturers, but they allow the FDA to take enforcement action if foods exceed the levels.

It’s part of the FDA’s ongoing effort to “reduce dietary exposure to contaminants, including lead, in foods to as low as possible over time, while maintaining access to nutritious foods,” the agency said in a statement.

Consumer advocates, who have long sought limits on lead in children’s foods, welcomed the guidance first proposed two years ago, but said it didn’t go far enough.

“FDA’s actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.”

Advertisement

The new limits on lead for children younger than 2 don’t cover grain-based snacks such as puffs and teething biscuits, which some research has shown contain higher levels of lead. And they don’t limit other metals such as cadmium that have been detected in baby foods.

The FDA’s announcement comes just one week after a new California law took effect that requires baby food makers selling products in California to provide a QR code on their packaging to take consumers to monthly test results for the presence in their product of four heavy metals: lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium.

The change, required under a law passed by the California Legislature in 2023, will affect consumers nationwide. Because companies are unlikely to create separate packaging for the California market, QR codes are likely to appear on products sold across the country, and consumers everywhere will be able to view the heavy metal concentrations.

Although companies are required to start printing new packaging and publishing test results of products manufactured beginning in January, it may take time for the products to hit grocery shelves.

The law was inspired by a 2021 congressional investigation that found dangerously high levels of heavy metals in packaged foods marketed for babies and toddlers. Baby foods and their ingredients had up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to five times the mercury level that the U.S. allows to be present in bottled or drinking water, the investigation found.

Advertisement

There’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The metal causes “well-documented health effects,” including brain and nervous system damage and slowed growth and development. However, lead occurs naturally in some foods and comes from pollutants in air, water and soil, which can make it impossible to eliminate entirely.

The FDA guidance sets a lead limit of 10 parts per billion for fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings and single-ingredient meats. It sets a limit of 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables and for dry infant cereals. The guidance covers packaged processed foods sold in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes.

Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of the Clean Label Project, an organization that certifies baby foods as having low levels of toxic substances, said consumers can use the new FDA guidance in tandem with the new California law: The FDA, she said, has provided parents a “hard and fast number” to consider a benchmark when looking at the new monthly test results.

But Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, called the FDA limits “virtually meaningless because they’re based more on industry feasibility and not on what would best protect public health.” A product with a lead level of 10 parts per billion is “still too high for baby food. What we’ve heard from a lot of these manufacturers is they are testing well below that number.”

The new FDA guidance comes more than a year after lead-tainted pouches of apple cinnamon puree sickened more than 560 children in the U.S. between October 2023 and April 2024, according to the CDC.

Advertisement

The levels of lead detected in those products were more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA’s maximum. Officials stressed that the agency doesn’t need guidance to take action on foods that violate the law.

Aleccia writes for the Associated Press. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Continue Reading

Science

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Published

on

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Anyone hoping for a clear path forward this year for NASA’s imperiled Mars Sample Return mission will have to wait a little longer.

The agency has settled on two potential strategies for the first effort to bring rock and soil from another planet back to Earth for study, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said Tuesday: It can either leverage existing technology into a simpler, cheaper craft or turn to a commercial partner for a new design.

But the final decision on the mission’s structure — or whether it should proceed at all — “is going to be a function of the new administration,” Nelson said. President-elect Donald Trump will take office Jan. 20.

“I don’t think we want the only [Mars] sample return coming back on a Chinese spacecraft,” Nelson said, referencing a rival mission that Beijing has in the works. “I think that the [Trump] administration will certainly conclude that they want to proceed. So what we wanted to do was to give them the best possible options so that they can go from there.”

Advertisement

The call also contained words of encouragement for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, which leads the embattled mission’s engineering efforts.

“To put it really bluntly, JPL is our Mars center in NASA science,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate. “They are the people who landed us on Mars, together with our industry partners. So they will be moving forward, regardless of which path, with a key role in the Mars Sample Return.”

In April, after an independent review found “near zero probability” of Mars Sample Return making its proposed 2028 launch date, NASA put out a request for alternative proposals to all of its centers and the private sector. JPL was forced to compete for what had been its own project.

The independent review board determined that the original design would probably cost up to $11 billion and not return samples to Earth until at least 2040.

“That was just simply unacceptable,” said Nelson, who paused the mission in late 2023 to review its chances of success.

Advertisement

Ensuing cuts to the mission’s budget forced a series of layoffs at JPL, which let go of 855 employees and 100 on-site contractors in 2024.

The NASA-led option that Nelson suggested Tuesday includes several elements from the JPL proposal, according to a person who reviewed the documents. This leaner, simpler alternative will cost between $6.6 billion and $7.7 billion, and will return the samples by 2039, he said. A commercial alternative would probably cost $5.8 billion to $7.1 billion.

Nelson, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Florida, will step down as head of the space agency when Trump takes office. Trump has nominated as his successor Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who performed the first private space walk, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

NASA has not had any conversations with Trump’s transition team about Mars Sample Return, Nelson said. How the new administration will prioritize the project is not yet clear.

“It’s very uncertain how the new administration will go forward,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for the Planetary Society, a Pasadena nonprofit that promotes space research. “Cancellation is obviously still on the table. … It’s hard to game this out.”

Advertisement

Planetary scientists have identified Mars Sample Return as their field’s highest priority in the last three decadal surveys, reports that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine prepare every 10 years in order to advise NASA.

Successfully completing the mission is “key for the nation’s leadership in space science,” said Bethany L. Ehlmann, a planetary scientist at Caltech in Pasadena. “I hope the incoming administrator moves forward decisively to select a plan and execute. There are extraordinary engineers at JPL and NASA industry partners eager and able to get to work to make it happen.”

Continue Reading

Science

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Published

on

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Night fell as the two scientists got to work, unfurling long nets off the end of their boat. The jungle struck up its evening symphony: the sweet chittering of insects, the distant bellowing of monkeys, the occasional screech of a kite. Crocodiles lounged in the shallows, their eyes glinting when headlamps were shined their way.

Across the water, cargo ships made dark shapes as they slid between the seas.

The Panama Canal has for more than a century connected far-flung peoples and economies, making it an essential artery for global trade — and, in recent weeks, a target of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s expansionist designs.

But of late the canal has been linking something else, too: the immense ecosystems of the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The two oceans have been separated for some three million years, ever since the isthmus of Panama rose out of the water and split them. The canal cut a path through the continent, yet for decades only a handful of marine fish species managed to migrate through the waterway and the freshwater reservoir, Lake Gatún, that feeds its locks.

Advertisement

Then, in 2016, Panama expanded the canal to allow supersize ships, and all that started to change.

In less than a decade, fish from both oceans — snooks, jacks, snappers and more — have almost entirely displaced the freshwater species that were in the canal system before, scientists with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama have found. Fishermen around Lake Gatún who rely on those species, chiefly peacock bass and tilapia, say their catches are growing scarce.

Researchers now worry that more fish could start making their way through from one ocean to the other. And no potential invader causes more concern than the venomous, candy-striped lionfish. They are known to inhabit Panama’s Caribbean coast, but not the eastern Pacific. If they made it there through the canal, they could ravage the defenseless local fish, just as they’ve done in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

Already, marine species are more than occasional visitors in Lake Gatún, said Phillip Sanchez, a fisheries ecologist with the Smithsonian. They’re “becoming the dominant community,” he said. They’re “pushing everything else out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending